King Death: < sicilianhugefun: This game stongly suggest that CHESS is truly for intellectual heavyweights...>

Do you think that these players were born 2700? They had to work just like weaker players to improve. Some of the comments that I see here are way beyond me.

<...A beginner or even an afficionado of the game will find it extremely difficult to grasp the essential aspects of this particular duel. The sword-fighting here is juist impressive and at the same time instructive only to the initiated.>

The way even strong players improve their skills is to analyze just such games, there's more to most of them than the 20 move crushes.

rjsolcruz: The opening moves of this classic game were repeated in Jose Castro of Far Eastern University vs Ian Forcado of Sta Rosa Science and Tech High School, Father's Day Cup in Meralco, Pasig City, PHL just this morning.

perfidious: < rjsolcruz: The opening moves of this classic game were repeated in Jose Castro of Far Eastern University vs Ian Forcado of Sta Rosa Science and Tech High School, Father's Day Cup in Meralco, Pasig City, PHL just this morning.>

Eduardo Bermudez: "How would you describe the seventh World Champion, Vasily Smyslov? - How can I express it in the right way? ... He is truth in chess! Smyslov plays correctly, truthfully and has a natural style" V. Kramnik 2005 !!

Ilia Abramovich Kan was <Botvinnik's> second for this match, and here's something perhaps unexpected he got for his troubles...

Andrew Soltis:

<"Smyslov later said the game that gave him the greatest esthetic pleasure in his entire career was the 14th of the match. But Botvinnik later saw treachery, since in the 14th game Smyslov quickly innovated in an opening Botvinnik had never tried before. <<<He accused his second, Kan, of disclosing his opening preparation to the enemy camp.>>>

Even though Smyslov publicly denied this, Botvinnik never took back his accusation.">

thomastonk: <WCC Editing Project: ".. Botvinnik never took back his accusation."> Who thinks the patron took anything back voluntarily? I tried to find the accusations against Kan in "Schacherinnerungen", but I didn't find them in the (surprisingly brief) match description. Was not-repeating enough of a disclaimer? Just a thought.

<"...This continuation made such a strong impression on my opponent, that in his notes to this game Botvinnik wrote: <<<'It is surprising that Smyslov was able to make highly detailed preparations for a variation which I had never before adopted, except in training games...'>>>">

I suppose the rest of the passage might serve as something like a "public denial" by Smyslov that he was gifted with this analysis by somebody else.

Smyslov:
<"As we know, the move 9.Be3 had been played earlier, and so, <<<in my theoretical analysis>>> of this opening system, this move was also examined, along with 9.d5 and 9.h3. And I succeeded in discovering an improvement for the defence with 11...exd4! Such is the history of the innovation which brought me success in the present game.">

Here is <Botvinnik> speaking for himself about the nasty <11...exd4!> surprise:

<"My opponent played the last three moves (Botvinnik means moves 9-11) immediately, about which <<<I could not hide my surprise>>>. It is certainly rather surprising that Smyslov should have been so well prepared in all the subtleties of a variation that I had never played before, except in training games...">

The ellipses (...) are added by <Botvinnik>. In this context, they seem intended to connote something "implied but not said."

At <Nikolina gora> from 17 Oct. 1952 up until 13 Feb. 1954, on the eve of this match, <Botvinnik> played no fewer than 27 training games with <Kan>, so there can perhaps be little doubt "which training games" he is referring to here.

Of course, all of this is a very long way from stating that "<Botvinnik> accused <Kan> of giving away his opening preparation and he never recanted this statement, though <Smyslov> publicly denied it."

I have a feeling that there may indeed exist some more strongly worded and explicit accounts of <Botvinnik's> suspicions of <Kan>, perhaps in Russian chess journals, but that's just guessing, and it doesn't help us any here.

And again, the maddening thing about <Soltis> is that he does not footnote and list sources for his claims here. I really doubt <Soltis> just made all this up, but I don't like having to guess about it either.

Anyways <thomas> you make a good point, no doubt about it and thanks for posting it.

john barleycorn: <There is relatively little off-the-board comment, but enough to underline what Child of Change has already shown: Kasparov has precious little regard for truth, accuracy, consistency or fairness. One example will suffice. As is well known, after losing three consecutive games to Karpov, Kasparov accused Vladimirov, his second, of treachery. He repeated his denunciation, at length, on pages 203-208 of Child of Change. A couple of sample extracts follow:

‘... the logic of the way things developed then, prove, to my mind though Vladimirov denies it – that I was betrayed ...’ (page 204)

‘I have often wondered what drove Vladimirov to behave as he did ... The motive, I think, was a twisted kind of jealousy ... He was having to live through me. I was achieving the sort of success he craved for himself and which he thought his own talents deserved. Deep down he resented my success. He thought it should be his. This kind of feeling makes a man a natural traitor, especially if it is allied to a weak personality with a tendency to self-degradation.’ (page 205)

International Herald Tribune, 11-12 October 1986

Kasparov has never offered proof, and fawning journalists have never demanded any. But now, having destroyed Vladimirov’s reputation, the same Kasparov has the gall to write on page 113 of London-Leningrad Championship Games:

‘... a serious conflict occurred in my relations with Vladimirov after the 19th game. To me he seemed to be behaving strangely – copying out the analysis of openings employed in the match. I cannot assert anything, and I have no grounds for accusing him, but equally I can no longer trust Vladimirov as I used to.’

Note those words carefully:

‘... I cannot assert anything, and I have no grounds for accusing him ...’>

<Months later, Kasparov won a rematch to officially become world champion, and subsequently won two more closely contested encounters with Karpov. Swirling around their chess wars were bizarre rumors that Karpov's seconds were sending him messages during the games in color-coded snacks and drinks and that the former world champion was getting through demanding games with the aid of amphetamines. During the third match, after losing several games where his opening novelties were easily outplayed by Karpov, Kasparov claimed that one of his most trusted trainers, Evgeny Vladimirov, who had been acting suspiciously in camp, was discovered copying the world champion's newest opening ideas into a notebook; Kasparov is convinced that Vladimirov was bribed by Karpov.>

Well I have yet to find any corroboration of Soltis' claim that <Botvinnik> directly accused Ilia Abramovich Kan of revealing his opening preparation to <Smyslov>.

But I did find this item-

Yuri Averbakh:

<"Before me, apart from Ragozin, it was I.A. Kan who had played training games with Botvinnik. And also at the dacha. He too, had to listen to the world champion's monologues, in the intervals of play.

<<<'You cannot imagine what a strange chap he is,'>>> Kan once told me, regarding Botvinnik. <<<'Once, we were discussing something quite peacefully, when suddenly, for no reason, he went into a sulk, stalked off into the woods, and very demonstratively refused to come to lunch!'>>>

Later, I risked asking Ilya Abramovich about this incident. He remarked sarcastically: <<<'Botvinnik thinks that he is world champion not only at chess, but in everything else. He- a totally ordinary person!'>>>>

MrJafari: I enjoyed this game specially because it's natural style (mostly Smyslov style). This style is rare in today's professional chess unfortunately...<WCC Editing Project:> I envy for your relaxation, convenience and time (+interest) to write such comments!

Dionysius1: This is what shook me about this game. As far as I understand things, the assessment of a position when White has a ♕ and Black has 3 minor pieces is whether Black can coordinate the pieces quicker than White can really start causing trouble with the ♕. How quickly Smyslov coordinates the pieces (moves 26 to 29)! Suddenly they're all secure and causing their own trouble.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.